The Competition and Market Authority (AGCM), better known as the Antitrustopened an investigation against 8 oil companies assuming aagreement on the cost of the organic component arising from blending obligations, which would have been implemented by the publication of information in Staffetta Quotidiana, the journal of energy sources. The investigations will have to establish the existence of infringements of Article 101 of the EU Treaty (TFEU) which regulates commercial practices which prevent, restrict or distort competition.

ANTITRUST INVESTIGATION STARTED FROM AN ANONYMOUS REPORT

In detail the Antitrust, from anonymous report of a whistleblowerreenacted the alleged wrongful conduct which would consist, as stated, of an agreement regarding the element of cost arising from biofuel blending requirements in automotive fuel (the so-called “bio component”), which would be resold at the same price to all market operators regardless of the cost actually borne by each oil company. According to the anonymous journalist, the practice would have occurred constantly in recent years and would have been carried out thanks to a public announcement system oil companies that took place in the Staffetta Quotidiana newspaper, initiated by ENI from January 2020.

ANTITRUST SURVEY ON BIOFUEL PRICES: THE 8 COMPANIES INVOLVED

Following this report, Antitrust analyzed all Staffetta Quotidiana figures from 2019 to present, effectively finding 16 articles referring to the price intentions of 8 oil companies which are, in fact, ENI SpA, but also Esso Italiana Srl, Saras SpA, Kuwait Petroleum Italia SpA (Q8), Tamoil Italiana SpA, Italiana Petroli SpA (IP), Repsol Italia SpA (meanwhile taken over by Tamoil ) and Iplom SpA.

THE ANTITRUST HYPOTHESIS ON THE ALLEGED “PRICE CARTEL” OF THE ORGANIC COMPONENT

Antitrust hypothesizes “coordination between the parties in order to limit mutual competition and to set in a coordinated manner a significant component of the price of automobile fuel represented by the cost of the organic component linked to legal obligations which, to date, provide for a minimum quantity equal to 10% of the total fuel released for consumption”. The agreement, reads the preliminary investigation, “could date back at least to January 1, 2020, the date of the second article published in Staffetta Quotidiana, which reports on a increase in organic component by ENI and expressly cites this company as the source of the information”.

HOW THE ALLEGED IMPRACT PRACTICE WOULD OCCUR

The increase in question, further writes Antitrust, “it proves far superior to the increase resulting from the increase in the mandatory quota (increased from 8% to 9% from January 1, 2020, editor’s note)”. According to the Authority “the January 2020 article would seem to report a stimulus announcement of the price by ENI which gives way to the hypothetical agreement: ENI, through Staffetta Quotidiana, seems, indeed, send a message to competitors inviting them to make raises”on line’ with their own”. So much so that, it still reads, “on the basis of the available data, it was possible to observe a parallelism in the implementation of the increases by the partyof other companies, as well asa very similar (in most cases completely identical) organic component value in recent years”.

Finally, given that the obligation to release biofuels for consumption refers to a “minimum quantity“, the Antitrust does not exclude “this coordination may also have involved the quantity of biofuel to be released for consumption which seems to be for everyone equal to the minimum quantity required by law”.

ANTITRUST AND BIOFUEL: THE DAY-TO-DAY POSITION

The Competition and Market Authority (AGCM/Antitrust) has already carried out inspections at the headquarters of Staffetta Quotidiana and those of the oil companies involved in the investigation to ensure thethe existence of offenses. In this regard, the editor-in-chief of Staffetta Quotidiana, Giovanni Goffredo Borromeo, stressing that his newspaper is not the subject of the investigation, wanted to reiterate the accuracy, professionalism and independence of SF in the exercise of its mission as a specialized journal with more than 90 years of experience: “All the information in question has been published and responds to a specific journalistic interest”.